Todd Rosenbaum
Member / Co-chair, Class Action Practice
+1.202.434.7411 Washington, DC
+1.212.692.6819 New York
As a Member in the firm’s Litigation section and Co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Practice Group, Todd maintains a nationwide practice, encompassing a diverse range of general commercial litigation, including contractual disputes, corporate governance disputes, class actions, with a particular focus on American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and data privacy claims, financial services-related litigation, as well as white collar crime and government investigations. He has been an integral member of teams representing clients at the trial and appellate court levels, and at mediation and arbitration.
He regularly advises clients in class action disputes involving consumer, privacy, contract, unfair trade practice, and discrimination claims. He has helped both public and private companies in a variety of sectors including transportation, life sciences, hospitality, higher education, health care, and retail and consumer products navigate the complexities of class actions at all stages of litigation, including discovery, motion practice, and trial.
Todd has developed a niche representing clients facing claims for violations of the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and similar state and local laws, including California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. In this role, he has counseled dozens of clients with respect claims concerning both physical accessibility and website accessibility. As part of his practice, Todd also regularly counsels clients on ADA compliance by helping them to create internal compliance programs, liaising with consultants on appropriate technical remediation and strategizing on risk mitigation to avoid future claims.
He also maintains a robust complex commercial litigation practice, counseling clients in the insurance and financial services, life sciences, technology, health care, sports and entertainment, and real estate industries in all manner of business disputes, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and shareholder derivative actions, as well as legal malpractice disputes.
Todd has a strong commitment to the firm’s pro bono efforts and represents clients in a variety of immigration and other matters. He has previously served on the firm’s Pro Bono Committee.
During law school, Todd was a notes editor for the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy and chair of the Health Law Society. Prior to law school, he was a Teach For America corps member and taught upper elementary school in East Harlem.
Experience
Representative Matters
- Secured summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division on behalf of RxSense, a pharmaceutical benefits manager software developer, in a complex contract and licensing dispute with a vendor.
- Represented an individual in a breach of contract action brought against a U.S.-based consumer products company and its Chinese parent company over non-payment of commissions. Successfully defended against a motion to dismiss and ultimately reached a favorable settlement on behalf of our client.
- Defends dozens of companies in numerous industries against class actions claiming ADA violations at their physical locations and on their websites, and counsels them on ADA compliance and risk mitigation.
- Secured summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in a class action alleging that defendants’ use of a cashless tolling system led to the assessment of violation fees without adequate notice or constitutional due process.
- Secured a $6.26 million judgment after a November 2021 trial in New York State Supreme Court on behalf of an investment banker client after his decade-long battle with his former fiancée over an investment property in the Hamptons. The jury returned a unanimous verdict and awarded our client the full amount of damages sought after a 7-day trial.
- Represented professional basketball franchise in intra-league dispute, securing favorable settlement outcome.
- Successfully appealed decision dismissing investment funds’ action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against former counsel.
- Conducted Audit Committee investigation into improper revenue recognition activities at public life sciences company.
- Conducted internal investigation into payroll fraud, accounting fraud, and FCPA violations at public company with retail operations throughout Central America and the Caribbean.
- Represents the world’s largest stock transfer company in securities and contract litigations.
- Represented diverse financial companies in litigation proceedings concerning losses related to a Eurobond default.
Pro Bono
- Secured asylum victory in Immigration court for client who fled El Salvador on account of threats of gang violence.
- Successfully petitioned for multiple teenage clients in removal proceedings to receive Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and obtain Lawful Permanent Residence.
- Secured asylum victory in Immigration Court appeal for client whose affirmative asylum application was denied because he had missed the one-year filing deadline.
- Represented leading environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, in constitutional litigation brought against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and other state agencies to prevent exploratory drilling in New York’s Adirondack Forest Preserve.
viewpoints
Establishing Jurisdiction Over Federal Court Motions to Confirm, Vacate or Modify Domestic Arbitral Awards
May 16, 2019 | Blog
As discussed in earlier posts, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., does not provide an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over federal court proceedings concerning domestic arbitrations. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 44, 50 (2009). (In the case of international and non-domestic arbitrations, where the New York Convention applies, FAA § 203 (9 U.S.C. § 203) establishes a federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.) Thus, absent diversity jurisdiction in the judicial proceeding in question, a petitioner must show federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in order to bring an application to confirm, vacate or modify a domestic arbitral award in federal court. But, as is frequently the case in the United States regarding such jurisdiction issues, the Federal Courts of Appeals are split on how that can be done.
Read more
Does the Physical or Mental Impairment of a Party Make An Arbitration Agreement Voidable?
March 5, 2019 | Blog
For an arbitration agreement to be enforceable, the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to understand its terms. See Fagerstrom v. Amazon.com, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (S.D. Cal. 2015). With this principle in mind, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit commented in 2006, regarding the enforceability of an arbitration clause that was prominent in a contract, “You’d have to be blind to miss this warning. There was no surprise here.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (emphasis added). But what if the plaintiff in Nagrampa had been blind, or was otherwise unable reasonably to read, or to understand, or to appreciate the significance of the arbitration clause by virtue of a disability or a more temporary impairment?
Read more
How to Compel Arbitration When Litigation Is Commenced in State Court
November 30, 2018 | Blog
In a previous post, we addressed what may happen when a defendant in federal litigation seeks to compel arbitration under Ch. 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4, but the applicable arbitration agreement specifies a place of arbitration that is outside the geographic jurisdiction of the federal court. (See https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2017-07-spectre-haunts-motions-compel-arbitration-venue.) But what approaches are available to a defendant when a plaintiff files suit in a state court, the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, and the agreed place of arbitration is in a different state?
Read more
When an agreement to arbitrate contains a clear and unmistakable “delegation” provision, gateway questions of arbitrability are for the arbitrator to decide. See, e.g., Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., 830 F.3d 199, 201-02 (5th Cir. 2016), citing First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010).
Read more
Pre-Arbitration Discovery: Turn to State Law Where the Federal Rules are Inadequate
March 26, 2018 | Blog
As discussed in an earlier post, obtaining discovery from a non-party to an arbitration often is easier said than done. Depending on the law of the place of arbitration, arbitrators may not be able to compel document production or testimony from a non-party before a hearing on the merits.
Read more
Document Discovery From Non-Parties in Commercial Arbitration: Availability and Practical Considerations
October 3, 2017 | Blog
Litigators in the U.S. often take for granted the ease with which they can obtain discovery from non-parties in our federal and state courts. One might assume that the “presumption in favor of arbitrability” embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (“FAA”), would have been implemented with, among other things, a statutory grant of subpoena power to arbitrators that is virtually coextensive with that of a federal district court.
Read more
The Spectre That Haunts Motions to Compel Arbitration: Venue
July 10, 2017 | Blog
When a claimant who is party to an arbitration agreement initiates litigation of arbitrable claims, the defendant in that case typically expects to be able to move successfully to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4.
Read more
Only in America: The Controversy Concerning Federal Jurisdiction Over Motions to Confirm, Vacate, or Modify Arbitral Awards
May 8, 2017 | Blog
In most countries, it is uncontroversial that a court sitting at the situs of an arbitration has jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition to confirm or vacate or modify an award issued in that arbitration. In the United States federal courts, however, the mix of issues concerning subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, respectively, has made for bewilderment galore.
Read more
Powers of a District Court to Grant Interim Relief After Compelling Arbitration of All Claims Before It
April 3, 2017 | Blog
Last month, we described the split among Federal Circuit Courts regarding the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 3, mandates a stay rather than dismissal of a judicial proceeding after a district court compels arbitration of all of the claims in an action before it.
Read more
Does the Show Stop For Appeal After a Court Compels Arbitration? The Federal Circuit Courts Are Split
February 24, 2017 | Blog
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., if a District Court compels arbitration of all of the claims that are before it, and thereupon dismisses the suit, its order compelling arbitration is final and appealable; but if the District Court stays the suit, its order compelling arbitration is “non-final” and not immediately appealable.
Read more
News & Press
Mintz is pleased to announce that four of its attorneys have been recognized in Benchmark Litigation’s 2023 “40 and Under Hot List,” which ranks attorneys aged 40 or younger who have been deemed the most promising rising talent in their respective litigation communities by peers and clients.
BOSTON –Mintz announced today that 39 of its practices and 81 of its attorneys earned recognition in the 2023 edition of Chambers USA, a guide to the country’s leading law firms.
Member Todd Rosenbaum and Associates Adam Korn and Sebastian Navarro co-authored an article that was republished by Class Action Reporter. The article discusses rulings in Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) lawsuits.
Google LLC Agrees To Settle Privacy Class Action For $391.5M
January 6, 2023
Member Todd Rosenbaum and Associates Adam Korn and Sebastian Navarro co-authored an article that was republished by Class Action Reporter. The article analyzes Google paying $391.5 million to settle an investigation by 40 state attorneys general.
2021 Trends in Bet-the-Company Class Actions
January 5, 2022
Managing Member of Mintz's Los Angeles Office Joshua Briones and Members Todd Rosenbaum and Arameh O'Boyle co-authored an article published by Corporate Counsel summarizing major developments for consumer class actions in 2021, many of which they wrote will carry over into 2022. The article included extensive contributions from Associates Crystal Lopez, Esteban Morales, and Adam Korn.
Mintz Promotes Nine to Member
December 15, 2021
Jury Awards $2.6M to Ex-Fiancé of MSNBC Reporter in Dispute Over Log Cabin in The Hamptons
November 29, 2021
The New York Law Journal reported that Mintz secured a complete trial victory for investment banker Richard Swift before a Suffolk County jury. After a seven-day trial, it took the jury only an hour-and-a-half to return a verdict for the firm's client, Mr. Swift, for the full amount of the $2.57 million in damages that he was seeking in his lawsuit against the former “Today Show” correspondent Jill Rappaport over a log house built on a Water Mill estate. The article included commentary from Mintz Managing Member Bob Bodian, who led the firm’s litigation team representing Mr. Swift, along with lead trial attorney Member Jason P.W. Halperin. Mintz associates Todd Rosenbaum and Iris Greenquist, as well as co-counsel Eileen Powers, also played critical roles at the trial, which ended on November 19.
Pro Bono Attorney Spotlight
October 31, 2019
Mintz Associate Todd Rosenbaum was featured in a “Pro Bono Attorney Spotlight” column published by KIND, a nonprofit organization that aims to provides protection for unaccompanied children who enter the U.S. immigration system alone and ensure that no child appears in immigration court without representation, for his significant contributions to multiple pro bono cases involving unaccompanied minors, and his commitment to pro bono work overall.
Events & Speaking
Speaker
Read less
Recognition & Awards
Chambers USA: New York - General Commercial Litigation: Up and Coming (2022 - 2023), Associate to Watch (2021)
Benchmark Litigation: 40 & Under Hot List (2022 - 2023)
Kids In Need of Defense: Pro Bono Spotlight Attorney (2019)
New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program: Pro Bono Service Award (2014)
Second Place, Epstein Becker & Green Health Law Writing Competition (2011)
New York City Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program: Pro Bono Service Award (2014)
Involvement
- Member, New York State Bar Association
Recent Insights
ADA “Tester” Standing Case Evades US Supreme Court Review—For Now
December 26, 2023| Blog|
Providing Sanctuary for Survivors
December 13, 2023| Article|
